[Mark McDonnell]

Hey Julie,

It's time for us to go at it again:

"I'm sick of older white men who unapologetically admit to still being racist and sexist assholes, and then seem to expect applause for having been so brave and honest as to admit it. And it's even more nauseating to me when they actually receive such applause."

Leaving out sexism, I can't think of many occasions where this (white men unapologetically admitting to racism and expecting applause) happens and is accepted by polite, liberal society. Certainly I can't think of many poems where a white person explores ambivalent feelings about race, and when they do they inevitably meet controversy and sometimes censure, rather than applause. See the Michael Dickman poem that caused Don Share to resign as editor of Poetry Magazine.

"He repeatedly signals that this ridiculous personage will only win his resentment, never his respect"

I don't read this in the poem at all. The only character who seems to be presented as ridiculous is the "little pink judge (who)
had to climb up on a box
to put the ribbon on her neck"

The black tennis player is presented as intimidating and powerful certainly, but this is from the N pov and it is surely the N attitude which is held up for questioning and examination here.

When he describes her

"cornrowed hair and Zulu bangles on her arms,
some outrageous name like Vondella Aphrodite—"

I think any intelligent reader will understand that this focus on the outward signifiers of the player's blackness, and the N seeming irritation at her "outrageous" name which he deliberately, sarcastically, gets wrong, are to be read as expressions of his small-minded prejudice and pettiness, not something he "expects applause for".

"I couldn't help wanting
the white girl to come out on top,
because she was one of my kind, my tribe,
with her pale eyes and thin lips

and because the black girl was so big
and so black,
so unintimidated,

hitting the ball like she was driving the Emancipation Proclamation
down Abraham Lincoln's throat,
like she wasn't asking anyone's permission."

The "I couldn't help" is important. It is an admission of a dark impulse toward tribalism. That "she wasn't asking anyone's permission", similarly, dramatises an attitude that white liberals are often accused of having. That black people should be somehow grateful for white people's help and allyship. I think all of this is very carefully and deliberately designed to make white readers uncomfortable. I can't imagine many people reading these lines and simply cheerleading the N.

Of course, Hoagland's poem could have made it more explicit that the N is "in the wrong" or have him more explicitly embracing and welcoming of the changes he acknowledges are happening. But this would have been polemic not poetry. The poem is deliberately designed to be uncomfortable, provocative and ambiguous. It seems to exemplify Auden's definition of poetry as the "clear expression of mixed feelings".

To play devil's advocate, doesn't the modern anti-racism movement rest on the idea, as exemplified by Robin DiAngelos "White Fragility", that every white person is inherently racist and that only by admitting this can one move forward? That to claim to be above or outside of racism, to not "see colour", is itself evidence of racism? In this case, Hoagland's would seem to be exactly the sort of poem this movement wants to see. Surely this movement can't have it both ways: on one hand to insist that racial animus permeates every aspect of social interaction and that every white person is unconsciously racist but then be outraged by a poem which explores these ideas.

I don't particularly like the poem because I can't relate to it. I never feel this kind of tribalism, whether racial or nationalistic, on the rare occasions when I watch sports. I just can't muster it up. I've no doubt it exists though, for both black and white people. I imagine there were black people in the European country where the other tennis player came from who were cheering for their "tribe" rather than their nationality.

[Julie Steiner]

Mark, I think the best that can be said for "The Change" is that it sparks thoughtful responses like yours. If Hoagland's own response to Claudia Rankine's open letter had been as thoughtful, instead of breathtakingly condescending, I could view the poem and its author's intentions for it more charitably.

Yes, "The poem is deliberately designed to be uncomfortable, provocative and ambiguous." And yes, those qualities have the potential to make a poem far more effective than polemic in inviting readers to examine their own attitudes.

I just don't think that this poem really does "explore" those attitudes with the assistance of discomfort, provocativeness, and ambiguity. Instead, it uses those tools to present racial biases as perfectly understandable, even inevitable, so why explore them further than that? If someone else finds them offensive, too bad. In that context, I see the phrase "I couldn't help wanting" as a total cop-out: Don't blame me for my racist feelings, I'm not responsible for them, they just happen to me, and I couldn't give them up even if I tried, so I won't bother to try.

And yes, I get that that may be intentional, to provoke exactly the sort of negative response I have to the poem. But Hoagland's own comments on the poem certainly suggest otherwise.

Anyway, I prefer the universality of this more empathetic sports poem by Tony Hoagland, who was indeed a brilliant poet, even though "The Change" is (for me and conny, at least) a swing and a miss.

(BTW, Happy Valentine's Day!)

[conny]

I don't think it is ambiguous at all. He doesn't like black
people, because they are different. Again, the poet thinks
that they are other. That's the problem right there,
openly stated in L.31. No equivocation.


he likes the white girl

because she was one of my kind, my tribe

meaning the black girl is not one of his kind. sub-human
i suppose, and other. I downloaded the poem and
changed half a dozen words. Try changing the word black
to the word Jewish. I invite anyone to try it and to see
how it looks. great poetry? i think not.

[Roger Slater]

Don't poets get to write persona poems anymore? WD Snodgrass wrote a thick collection of poems in the voices of various Nazis, and needless to say they expressed some pretty horrifically hateful points of view. The question here shouldn't be do we like the speaker of the poem, but is the speaker coming across as an authentic example of a person we don't like. If somehow the poet is inviting us to side with or sympathize with the speaker's outlook, then we are in the land of offensiveness, but as I read it (only once, which was enough for me) I didn't get the feeling that the views of the persona were being endorsed.

[Julie Steiner]

Given how insulting Hoagland's response to Claudia Rankine was, it's very hard for me to see this poem as simply a persona poem.

Mark, I don't think N expects applause for the small-minded prejudice and pettiness itself, but for the supposed courage in admitting to such unflattering aspects of himself. He knows that confessing to harboring such thoughts will probably not be met with applause, particularly by the friend he is addressing in the poem (who didn't share N's attitudes even in the flashback).

[Roger Slater]

Originally Posted by Julie Steiner

Given how insulting Hoagland's response to Claudia Rankine was, it's very hard for me to see this poem as simply a persona poem.

But I haven't read either what Rankine said or what Hoagland wrote in response, so I have to take the poem at face value, and to me it comes across as a persona poem. It's quite possible that Hoagland himself is such an asshole that I will no longer be able to enjoy any of his poems in the future, no matter how good they would strike me were his character deficiencies concealed from me. But whether to start disliking an artist upon learning he is a bad person is a different question from whether a given poem is itself offensive.

[Julie Steiner]

Roger, my less-than-enthusiastic opinion of this one poem has absolutely no effect on how wholeheartedly I admire the two other Hoagland poems ("Don't Tell Anyone" and "Romantic Moment') that I've posted in this thread, one of which I also posted at Eratosphere when he died a few years ago.

If poets aren't allowed to be assholes occasionally, I'm in deep, deep trouble.

[Martin Elster]

Originally Posted by conny

I don't think it is ambiguous at all. He doesn't like black
people, because they are different. Again, the poet thinks
that they are other. That's the problem right there,
openly stated in L.31. No equivocation.

Conny, aren’t you confusing the narrator with the poet? I don’t think the voice is the poet’s (Hoagland’s) voice. The N is (as Mark said) small-minded, petty, and prejudiced. The reason I think it’s a great poem is precisely that it causes readers (including myself) to feel uncomfortable.

As I said in my original comments about the poem, there is an allusion to tribalism. People are inherently tribal. But civilized and enlightened people have overcome and have transcended their tribal impulses so they treat others with respect. (Tribalism, by the way, has been ingrained by evolution. But we are not tribal. We are civilized, so have overcome and transcended those primitive instincts.)

I have a feeling that the poet, Hoagland, knows these things. Furthermore, he probably also knows that race is a hot-button topic.

The poem is not to my taste. I don’t even watch sports very often, nor do I care much who wins. (I did go through a period where I watched a lot of table tennis, because I used to play in clubs and compete in tournaments, even won some trophies. I didn't care what the athletes looked like, what country they were from, if they liked dogs, were meat-eaters or vegans, or wore glasses, or how old or young they were, or wore a baseball cap on their head. All that mattered was the game, how good or bad the players were, their style of play, the kind of paddle they used, improving my technique, and having fun.)

So, like Mark, I don’t relate to Hoagland’s poem and don’t much care for it. But I do think it is, if not great, at least a very good (in part because it’s controversial) piece of writing. (But maybe it isn't. Who am I to judge the quality of a poem?) Yes, the N (not the poet!) is small-minded and seems reluctant to admit that societal attitudes have, for the most part, changed.

[conny]

I did consider it at first, but I think It’s fairly lame to claim this
particular poem is a persona, that the poet is making a point
directly opposite to the one that the words actually say on the
page. I’m not against that as a device in any way; far from it.
But I can only go with the poem as it’s presented.

It has no hint of satire. Nor is it in any way ironic. Nor does it seem
In any way a parody. There’s no suggestion anywhere that the sentiments
expressed are not sincere; the opposite in fact is true.
For that reason I’m afraid to say it comes across as a pretty vile
piece of work, which is something I don’t say lightly.

Skilful obviously, thoughtful, and honest in its way, but vile.

[Martin Elster]

Maybe you’re right, Conny, about the lack of irony. But doesn’t this passage (at the end) at least hint at some degree of irony?

And the little pink judge
had to climb up on a box
to put the ribbon on her neck,
still managing to smile into the camera flash,
even though everything was changing

and in fact, everything had already changed—

Poof, remember? It was the twentieth century almost gone,
we were there,

and when we went to put it back where it belonged,
it was past us
and we were changed.

Added in: Perhaps it's because of the N's crude and vile thoughts that I find Hoagland's poem painful to read. And since I'm not a masochist, I'm not interested in reading the poem anymore, unless for the purpose of studying his poetic techniques.

PS - The more I think about it, the topic of Hoagland's poem and how he treats it just not very interesting. How many people in America nowadays think about "race" while watching a sport on TV? Hardly anyone. (In fact, most people don't go about their day thinking about it.) So the subject is old. Another thing that bothers me: his use of "we" near the end. "and when we went to put it back where it belonged." Who is "we"? (I guess it's the N and his friend, but could supposedly also mean society). And what does he mean by putting the twentieth century back "where it belonged"? Who is the "we" that "went to put it back"? And where does the N think it belonged? It sounds ambiguous. Does it mean that he and his friend were reluctant to part with the 20th century, or that they are glad it's "past us"?